No Complaints about new football league Sponsor?

I see there is no one complaining that SkyBet is the new football League sponsor.

Is this because Nick isnt associated with it?

And yes this does directly affect our club as a revunue stream, more so than a sponsor on the back of a shirt or stand.

And YES gambling is as much of a problem in this country as loan companys.

I have no problem with Nikkk sponsoring Argyle.

I do have a problem with his association with a liar like Ian Newell and I feel that Brent should be paying his own debts not Nikkk doing it for him.

I do also have a problem with the logo where it is on the back of the shirt. It's too big and means the player names will look odd being where they will be this season. Also kids cannot have names on the back of their shirts as there is no room.

Yea Man wrote:

I have no problem with Nikkk sponsoring Argyle.

I do have a problem with his association with a liar like Ian Newell and I feel that Brent should be paying his own debts not Nikkk doing it for him.

I do also have a problem with the logo where it is on the back of the shirt.  It's too big and means the player names will look odd being where they will be this season.  Also kids cannot have names on the back of their shirts as there is no room.

I think that last bit about names on the back of the shirt is an exageration. The name just goes lower rather than across the shoulder. If players name can go there i'm pretty certain kids names can go there aswell.

To me it just looks odd having the name that low down.

The FES logo could go underneath the name or right below the number, I think that would look better.

I'm sure someone posted on here or pasoti that they'd bought a shirt for their little one and they couldn't have a name on the back because it didn't fit.

125+1 wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

I have no problem with Nikkk sponsoring Argyle.

I do have a problem with his association with a liar like Ian Newell and I feel that Brent should be paying his own debts not Nikkk doing it for him.

I do also have a problem with the logo where it is on the back of the shirt.  It's too big and means the player names will look odd being where they will be this season.  Also kids cannot have names on the back of their shirts as there is no room.

I think that last bit about names on the back of the shirt is an exageration.  The name just goes lower rather than across the shoulder. If players name can go there i'm pretty certain kids names can go there aswell.

125+1, the problem is with the under 5's shirt, obviously they are much smaller than an adult shirt but the logo seems to be the same size hence leaving no room for a name, surely they could have left the logo off the kids shirts ? in my opinion they should be the only ones allowed to have their name on a shirt anyway, adults who do it strike me as a tad retarded.

IsThatHHP? wrote:

125+1 wrote:

Yea Man wrote:

I have no problem with Nikkk sponsoring Argyle.

I do have a problem with his association with a liar like Ian Newell and I feel that Brent should be paying his own debts not Nikkk doing it for him.

I do also have a problem with the logo where it is on the back of the shirt.  It's too big and means the player names will look odd being where they will be this season.  Also kids cannot have names on the back of their shirts as there is no room.

I think that last bit about names on the back of the shirt is an exageration.  The name just goes lower rather than across the shoulder. If players name can go there i'm pretty certain kids names can go there aswell.

125+1, the problem is with the under 5's shirt, obviously they are much smaller than an adult shirt but the logo seems to be the same size hence leaving no room for a name, surely they could have left the logo off the kids shirts ? in my opinion they should be the only ones allowed to have their name on a shirt anyway, adults who do it strike me as a tad retarded.

Havent seen the smaller kits, but if the logo is the same size that is stupid, it should be in proportion of the shirt.

Yea Man wrote:

To me it just looks odd having the name that low down.

The FES logo could go underneath the name or right below the number, I think that would look better.

I'm sure someone posted on here or pasoti that they'd bought a shirt for their little one and they couldn't have a name on the back because it didn't fit.

Agree it would be better directly under the number, me personally i think it would be better placed on each arm of the shirt, rather than the back, but that isnt really a back of the shirt sponsorship deal, and not sure how big it could be on the arms.

Yea Man wrote:

I have no problem with Nikkk sponsoring Argyle.

I do have a problem with his association with a liar like Ian Newell and I feel that Brent should be paying his own debts not Nikkk doing it for him.

I do also have a problem with the logo where it is on the back of the shirt.  It's too big and means the player names will look odd being where they will be this season.  Also kids cannot have names on the back of their shirts as there is no room.

On Nick's association with IN, i pretty sure you dont let people dictate to you, who you have as your friends and im pretty certain i dont let people tell me who i can and cannot assoiciate with so why should Nick.

Its entirely up to Nick, but to tar someone with the same brush is a little pathetic especially by adults.

125+1 wrote:

......

On Nick's association with IN, i pretty sure you dont let people dictate to you, who you have as your friends and im pretty certain i dont let people tell me who i can and cannot assoiciate with so why should Nick.

Its entirely up to Nick, but to tar someone with the same brush is a little pathetic especially by adults.

Up to a point, I agree with you. I think Nikk has had a rough deal on here - as maybe have others. I was impressed when he came on here for a brief period to attempt to state his case & answer questions. Lots of that is being damned by association and many posters on here, rightly or wrongly, have big issues with Mr Newell.

Yea Man wrote:

To me it just looks odd having the name that low down.

The FES logo could go underneath the name or right below the number, I think that would look better.

I'm sure someone posted on here or pasoti that they'd bought a shirt for their little one and they couldn't have a name on the back because it didn't fit.

Twas i Yea Man, although i managed to get around the problem: Please refer to my post about halfway down page 3 on "The Mind Boggles" thread in blocks 17 & 18.

125+1 wrote:

And YES gambling is as much of a problem in this country as loan companys.

Errr! No it isn't.

Ok so gambling is a prob with divs doing their dough but there is a serious difference between Niiiiikkkkkkkkkkkkkkk and Sky Bet, you owe Sky Bet you are perfectly entitled to give them the finger, you owe Niiiiiikkkkkkkkkkkkk and he takes away your house.

No judge in this country is gonna take away your place of abode to weigh out a bookie.

That imho is why Usury Nick is the worst case scenario, Wonga may charge more interest but their loans are unsecured, even debts to gambling companies aren't that bad as they usually don't carry prohibitve penalties in the form of interest and are as close to unenforecable in law as you can get, whereas Usury Nick charges huge interest yet takes little or no risk.

I see the betting as being different from the money lenders imho.
I still not happy with the FES defacing the shirts, i am still not happy with the FES/FIL Filth daubed all over the stadium, and if Nickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk is the big shot that he is making himself out to be then why is he hanging around with shady characters? says it all really

The other aspect that pisses me off with the FIS/FEL sponsorship deals is that it's plastered everywhere! Not a bit of subtle advertising but cover the whole area of Home Park with them.

It's been pointed out about the logo on the back of the shirt, another first in football I suppose? because I can't recall another team having a front of shirt sponsor and a back of shirt sponsor, so it's obvious that Nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkk would like to be the main shirt sponsor but that's still under contract with Bond Timber so he has to have his big logo plastered on the back of the shirt making it look far worse than it already did.

It's overload and if SkyBet were everywhere around Home Park and if you go to the club website and you had to endure Skybet ads before you got to the website or if every time Sheridan was interviewed he said "The boys played well today, thanks to SkyBet" or something similar peopel would get pissed off with it all, which is how many feel about Nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

He's trying to buy people's respect or friendship which is all a bit sad really, he's trying far, far, too hard and comes across as a right nob because of it. And that's before we start on his friendship with Newell which is enough to make you puke anyway. If Nikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk's company is respectable and wants to gain customers perhaps he should ditch the porcine one and ease up a bit on advertising. All this talk about repairing people's credit score is bollocks, FES/FIL charge considerably more interest than your high st bank because the people coming to him are desparate and can't "rebuild their credit score" with more reputable companies.

I know this because I worked for a similar company myself years ago and I saw first hand what damage these crippling interest rates can do and how desparate people become to try and dig themselves out of the hole they're in. When I realised what kind of money was being made and how many people were committing suicide or being forced out of their home while my boss swanned around in flash cars I walked out of a really well paid job. It made me feel sick listening to people beg to you on the phone and reading letters about suicides and houses that had been burned down rather than let the loan company take possession.

I personally don't think the family enclosure should be sponsored by these companies but that's Brent's decision and from what I've seen of him already he won't lose sleep over it.

First European Securities 39.8% variable

Representative Example: The Representative APR is 39.8% so if you borrow £5000 over 7 years at a rate of 23.4% you will repay £156.6 per month & total amount payable £13,154.40.
Available to home owners only.

One things for sure, skybet offer much better returns on your money  

Yea Man wrote:

First European Securities 39.8% variable

Representative Example: The Representative APR is 39.8% so if you borrow £5000 over 7 years at a rate of 23.4% you will repay £156.6 per month & total amount payable £13,154.40.
Available to home owners only.

One things for sure, skybet offer much better returns on your money  

That is disgraceful

125+1 wrote:

I see there is no one complaining that SkyBet is the new football League sponsor.

Is this because Nick isnt associated with it?

And yes this does directly affect our club as a revunue stream, more so than a sponsor on the back of a shirt or stand.

And YES gambling is as much of a problem in this country as loan companys.

Ill have a go then shall I, not that I am that bothered about Nikkk sponsoring the shirts or have commented on it to my knowledge? I am against any sponsoring by credit companies or betting companies, there is blatant hypocrisy going on with the football leagues family first football day out experience bullshit, families should not be pushed betting and borrowing at the same time whilst attending a match. Mind you once most families have paid the pay day lender off there is no chance of affording a first in football family day experience whether it is sponsored by skybet or FIL.
You are a bit obsessed about what other people are obsessing about 125, it's not healthy mate, you need to get your own obsessions, but then thinking about it this is yours isn't it?

Then there is beer and baccy adverts banned.

It's amazing the stick you get for having principles these days.

I wouldn't think Carling would be able to sponsor the DJM junior football league, nor Benson and Hedges but then I doubt they would ask.

I must admit though I don't sit at home shaking my fist worrying about who's sponsoring Argyle but I'm surprised dogbreath Hooper hasn't complained about FES/FIL being involved at Argyle because he's easily outraged and is a moral crusader. Hypocrisy again from the sanctimonious prick.

Most fans would accept sponsoring from Taliban heroin if it meant we signed a decent striker, lack of morals is endemic at HP these days.

Iggy wrote:

Most fans would accept sponsoring from Taliban heroin if it meant we signed a decent striker, lack of morals is endemic at HP these days.

top notch, so ive heard. sponsored by her majis government

The type of loans offered by FES shouldn't be compared to QuickQuid et al. There's a World of difference between their rates. The above example, compared to QuickQuid, isn't possible - you can't borrow that much from a payday loan company for a start and we're talking 1000s of % APR.

Betting websites aren't loan companies either so comparing the two isn't really helpful.

Thirdly, sport has always been sponsored by tobacco companies, alcohol producers/companies and betting companies. How many Sunday League clubs are sponsored by pubs? Skybet sponsoring the League doesn't bother me, I never called it nPower League 2 last season and won't be calling it Skybet League 2 this season either. The FES/FIL stand doesn't bother me - I call it Zoo Corner.

There you go - a post explaining very little.

It's a good question though and it's made a few people squirm a little. Morality! People are full of it when it suits them.

It isn't a good question though, nor was it designed to be. It is a person trying to get a rise out of others so as to (in his quite sad little mind) justify his tag line.

It's actually pretty crap trolling, though it isn't surprising that you're impressed.... 

It's a better question than most that get asked on here.

The use of "troll" is so overused - this isn't trolling. Trolling isn't obvious - obvious trolling is called flaming. This isn't flaming. If it is, why respond to it? Flaming trolls.

Here's a proper troll post from a forum discussing the assault on Nigella Lawson.

Quote :

From all the fuss in the media today I assumed the guy would be doing a dual handed death grip, leaving her gasping for air, bruised and unable to even sob after he let go.

From the pictures it seems like he's just doing a one handed light pressure compliance reinforcement grip which causes no damage and doesn't even restrict airflow. Storm in a tea-cup tbh.

Edit: just read the guys reason as it was posted a few seconds before I made my post. Tbh I believe all he was trying to do was emphasize a point, if he really wanted to hurt her in public then he would have repeatedly jabbed her in the kidneys while embracing her so no one was none the wiser.

I can now see why certain sections of society are worried about google glass.

It's a peice of art is that post. Can you see the difference?

Czarcasm wrote:

It isn't a good question though, nor was it designed to be. It is a person trying to get a rise out of others so as to (in his quite sad little mind) justify his tag line.

It's actually pretty crap trolling, though it isn't surprising that you're impressed.... 

Really Trolling, I see it got a rise out of you, no surprise there, when everyone esle has pretty much answered what was a simple question honestly and fairly.

Perhaps you need to take a look at yourself.